Home and self defence is even more important with what happened in Belgium as well as?

.. as well as other terrorist attacks over the last few years, the Obama administration arming Mexican drug cartels on both sides of the border, as well the rise in mass shootings by mentally unwell people taking dangerous psychotropic pharmaceutical anti depressants not to mention the rise of criminality, the potential for rape and the mass influx of potential terrorists leaving the Middle East. How important is self and home defence to you?

Very. Thats why I own a gun

Vote A

Important. But I willing to let police do their job and hopefully they csn get to me on time

Home and self defence is even more important with what happened in Belgium as well as?

4

7

Add Opinion

Most Helpful Girls

Anonymous

+1 y

Unfortunately a gun doesn't do much good when a terrorist walks into an airport and blows himself up.

I don't get why people equate gun control with getting rid of guns, though. Practically no one in America is for taking away guns. Not the liberals, not the conservatives, nor anyone in-between. The disagreements are about not letting people get around background checks and common sense things like that when buying a gun. Don't make it easier for criminals or unstable people to get a hold of weapons. That seems reasonable to me.

0|0

0|0

Is this still revelant?

Asker

+1 y

can't press a button with a bullet between the eyes. I saw that one in iraq. Criminals with guns dont get background checks as the Paris attacks proved.

Owning a gun to protect yourself and your family sounds great in theory. I can understand why people think it sounds like a good idea. But in reality, it's not so simple. Owning a gun makes you more likely to be killed or injured by a gun, not less likely. And the number of accidents involving children is horrifying. If guns are going to be allowed at all, we need more control, not less. People aren't nearly careful enough.

0|1

0|0

Is this still revelant?

Asker

+1 y

As a person who has had to use a gun to defend his family I disagree with your POV.

I know it happens. But horrible accidents happen too. Again, if guns are to be allowed, we at least need more control. Background checks, extensive safe handling courses, safety audits for gun owners, etc. If you're someone who is capable of handling a gun responsibly, then you should have no motive to be against such measures.

I'm not sure how that's relevant. Again, there's no good reason not to be as careful as possible. If you are capable of handling a gun in the most responsible manner, you should have no reason to be against cautious measures.

Asker

+1 y

I get what you are saying recently an NRA spokeswoman got shot in the back by her son while driving, apparently she left her holstered gun on the floor and it slid to the back of her vehicle for her son to grab now that's bad gun handling and she should be banned for owning firearms but then recently a woman I used to work with wrapped her car around a tree with her son in the car with her son in the back because she was texting and had been drinking so people need to take care in all aspects of life.

That's the kind of thing we need to work harder to prevent. It doesn't matter how unlikely it is to happen compared to other types of accidents- it's still worth doing everything we can to prevent that from happening.

Most Helpful Guys

Guns would not have helped in Brussels.. Shooting them would have likely led to the same result.Personally I'm not concerned with crime as my state has the lowest break in rate in the country, and I don't believe in terrorism. Of course I care about my families well being

@samhradh_leannan I don't believe That Islamic Terrorist have been responsible for the most sophisticated attacks in the west. There is plenty of proof that the CIA has been involved with Al Qaeda and ISIS. I Suspect the Intelligence angencies are the real controllers behind these groups. Plenty of qualified people have said so

Show All Show Less

Asker

+1 y

Well if the IRA could nearly kill Margaret Thatcher and bomb England at will why couldn't ISIS with millions of potential recruits with military training, backgrounds and equipment as well natural born citizens plan and carry out these attacks when an organisation of around a few thousand can build something as complex a 500lb mortar bomb?

Omg 😂 I live in SC, trump voters is literally and synonym for racists now lol so I want a gun just in case a edicts gets out of line 😂 And the reason that we say trump voters is because it's them who are getting rude already. He's inciting hatred in people.

Asker

+1 y

Well whenever they decide to riot and destroy their own neighbourhoods and businesses as many Obama voters did not so long ago let me know.

Toddlers have killed more people in your country than terrorists have.America fuck yeah right?

0|0

0|0

Asker

+1 y

Because homeland security is doing its job and the military fights them in their own backyard. Cars have killed more people in my country as has obesity but we are still allowed to drive and cram donuts down our throats.

All of those are logical consequences of having cars, stairs and rat poison. All of which are necessary. Well, maybe not rat poison, but that's another subject. Life would be very hard without cars or stairs. Guns on the other hand are unnecessary.

Asker

+1 y

Cars aren't necessary until you want to go somewhere. Guns aren't necessary until there's an unknown man in your home intending to do you and yours harm.

Actually, you are right. You can use a bicycle. Or a train or a bus. Or a plane.And for a gun, you could use pepper spray. Or a taser. Or a baton or a baseball bat or a kitchen knife. You don't need a semi automatic rifle or a shotgun to defend yourself.

I don't want guns banned. I want semi automatic rifles, semi automatic shotguns and long range rifles to get banned.

Asker

+1 y

Its Irelevant to ban automatic shotguns as a pump action can shoot almost as fast. Long range rifles like hunting rifles? Semi autos shouldn't be banned but people should be trained to use them properly. Out of everything you want to ban handguns account for the most gun deaths and are the weapon of choice for gang bangers who aren't licenced to carry like me.

Okay then. Any shotgun that isn't a two-barrel should be banned. And semi automatic rifles too. And long range hunting rifles, yes. And of course, handguns with 10 or less bullets in them.

Asker

+1 y

A handgun is allowed with a ten bullet magazine but you will ban a pump action shotgun which is safer for home defence? If I was crazy and wanted to shoot up a school id choose the ten shot handgun if I have five magazines thats fifty people dead. You want to ban hunting rifles what about those who live in places with wolves, bears, wolverines and cougars? Plus for some hunting is a traditional way of life, will you destroy their culture?

How is a pump action shotgun safer than a handgun? For killing people, yes, for self-defence no.And for bears and animals you can always get a six shot large caliber revolver.Indeed, with 5 magazines that would be 50 people dead. If those magazines had 20 bullets it would be 100 people dead.

Asker

+1 y

Most long rang rifles carry five shots. If you miss with a handgun the bullet could penetrate through your dry wall killing a family member, you have a whole selection of rounds to choose from for shotguns some less than lethal and the sound of cocking the pump action is the internationally understood as get the hell out. Have you ever shot a large calibre revolver accurate it ain't and I wouldn't bet my life on it.Or instead of five magazines I just carry 10 as it only takes less than ten seconds to reload there's no difference its the same amount of bullets.

And I'm sure you were asked lots of questions and there was a long waiting time, no?Also, in regards to that whole "hunting tradition" thingy, yeah, that has to go. I mean, it's okay to have traditions and stuff. But if those traditions endanger the populace by making long range powerful firearms easily available, then those traditions will be ignored.

Asker

+1 y

For the magazines and bullets no. For the guns there was a lot of hoops to jump through. Wow you think its ok to destroy peoples way of life but are ok with alcohol and junk food being available. Also cars have licenced owners and yet more people die in car accidents than by guns. Personally I think a person shouldn't be allowed to drive a car until 26 when they are more responsible that way car accidents will be cut by 80%.

Like I said, cars are necessary in modern life. Guns are not.And if you weren't asked anything for the bullets or magazines then that is a problem too. And no, I don't think junk food or alcohol are okay. But junk food only endangers the life of those who eat it, not the lives of those who don't.

Asker

+1 y

Actually cars aren't necessary for modern life as everyone used to walk everywhere and were healthier for it. The age limit really needs to be raised though as most accidents are caused by under 25's

Maybe if more people used tasers instead of guns, there would be less dead people because of babies.

Asker

+1 y

Taser would kill a baby too. Nah we need to better restrict what under 25 men can do so 1. No guns (unless in the military)2. No driving3. No drinking4. No sex5. No opinions6. No internetBasically just homework and exercise.